Delegates Adopt ATT Rules of Procedure

Zughni, Farrah, Arms Control Today

Delegates from UN member states reached a last-minute agreement on rules of procedure for negotiation of an arms trade treaty (ATT) on Feb. 17, the last day of the weeklong fourth and final session of the ATT Preparatory Committee in New York. Participants agreed that consensus was necessary for adoption of substantive matters and the final treaty text.

The ATT, a potential multilateral agreement intended to regulate international trade of conventional weapons, is scheduled to be negotiated July 2-27. The rules of procedure provide guidelines for delegate participation, the roles of officers, and decision-making at the July meeting.

"We had to fight quite hard for it and were pleased that the final outcome reflected a reasonable balance," Jo Adamson, the head of the United Kingdom's delegation to the Conference on Disarmament (CD), said of the meeting in a Feb. 19 interview. The United Kingdom was one of the initial supporters of an ATT.

The main issue of contention at the meeting was whether the participants would vote on proposals if they could not reach consensus. Under the adopted rules of procedure, all substantive decisions must be made by consensus while procedural decisions can be made by a two-thirds majority vote, but only after the conference president has determined that "efforts to reach a consensus have been exhausted."

An earlier draft of the rules of procedure, submitted Feb. 6, allowed for substantive matters leading up to a final text, as well as procedural issues, to be put to a vote, but required that a final text be adopted by consensus.

A number of countries, including Cuba and members of the Arab Group, objected to the Feb. 6 draft, arguing that the language was not in keeping with UN General Assembly Resolution 64/48, the mandate under which the July negotiating conference will be convened. The resolution, which was adopted in December 2009 with the support of 158 countries, states that the ATT negotiation will be conducted "on the basis of consensus." The Cuban delegation also claimed that because the resolution "made no distinction" between procedural and substantive decisions, it required consensus on all matters.

Some critics of the draft maintained that consensus was the only way to safeguard their autonomy on such a sensitive issue as arms sales. "The reason for the introduction of this stipulation was to assure participating states that their vital security interest[s] are not cast aside by a show of hands," the Israeli delegation said on Feb. 13.

However, Mexico, Norway, and member states of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), among others, objected to the draft rules of procedure on the grounds that they did not go far enough to ensure a robust final text. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Print this page

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary
to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution.
We are sorry for any inconvenience.